News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

A young lady who will figure things out soon. She is using critical thinking skills. Good for her. The younger generation needs this kind of grit to deal with the suicidal profit over planet government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBuz4dU5Ew&feature=player_embeddedSyndey suggested changes and railed against a provision she was asked to sign saying that she wasn't allowed to discuss the test with her parents:

Meanwhile, as the rich become much richer, the level of income and wealth inequality has reached obscene and unimaginable levels. In the United States, we have the most unequal level of wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth, and worse now then at any other time since the 1920s. Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and one family owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent. In terms of income, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

This is what a rigged economic system looks like. At a time when millions of American workers have seen declines in their incomes and are working longer hours for lower wages, the wealth of the billionaire class is soaring in a way that few can imagine. If you can believe it, between 2013 and 2015, the 14 wealthiest individuals in the country saw their net worth increase by over $157 billion dollars. Children go hungry, veterans sleep out on the streets, senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs -- and 14 individuals saw a $157 billion dollar increase in their wealth over a two-year period.

Snippet 2:

Quote

And, by the way, if you think that the Republican Party's refusal to acknowledge that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is a severe threat to our planet, is not related to how we finance campaigns, you would be sorely mistaken. With the Koch brothers (who make much of their money in the fossil fuel industry) and big energy companies strongly supporting Republican candidates, it should not surprise anyone that my Republican colleagues reject the views of the overwhelming majorit y of scientists who study climate issues.

Agelbert NOTE: I agree with much of what Senator Sanders says. However, I DO NOT agree that the "economy today is much better than it was six years ago when George W. Bush left office" (unless you are an oligarch ). This is NOT about Republicans versus Democrats, as Bernie wants us to believe. That's mutt and jeff, bad cop, good cop gaming of the masses in defense of the corrupt satus quo.

What part of "The U.S.A. is a M.I.C. dictatorship with Representative Republic/Democracy lipstick" does Senator Sanders NOT understand?

Some might say he doesn't WANT to understand it because his role is that of a TOKEN to make people believe the lipstick is the reality. As much as I like Senator Sanders, I think that hypothesis has merit.

The rich white family has an unrivaled aptitude for crime. Members of rich white families run corporations into the ground (think Lehman Brothers), defraud stockholders and investors, sell toxic mortgages as gold-plated investments to pension funds, communities and schools, and then loot the U.S. Treasury when the whole thing implodes. They steal hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street through fraud and theft, pay little or no taxes, almost never go to jail, write laws and regulations that legalize their crimes and then are asked to become trustees at elite universities and sit on corporate boards. They set up foundations and are admired as philanthropists. And if they get into legal trouble, they have high-priced lawyers and connections among the political elites to get them out.

The Pathology of the Rich White Family

Posted on May 17, 2015By Chris Hedges

The pathology of the rich white family is the most dangerous pathology in America. The rich white family is cursed with too much money and privilege. It is devoid of empathy, the result of lifetimes of entitlement. It has little sense of loyalty and lacks the capacity for self-sacrifice. Its definition of friendship is reduced to “What can you do for me?” It is possessed by an insatiable lust to increase its fortunes and power. It believes that wealth and privilege confer to it a superior intelligence and virtue. It is infused with an unchecked hedonism and narcissism. And because of all this, it interprets reality through a lens of self-adulation and greed that renders it delusional. The rich white family is a menace. The pathologies of the poor, when set against the pathologies of rich white people, are like a candle set beside the sun.

There are no shortages of acolytes and propagandists for rich white families. They dominate our airwaves. They blame poverty, societal breakdown, urban violence, drug use, domestic abuse and crime on the pathology of poor black families—not that they know any. They argue that poor black families disintegrate because of some inherent defect—here you can read between the lines that white people are better than black people—a defect that these poor families need to fix.

Peddle this simplistic and racist garbage and you will be given a column at The New York Times. It always pays to suck up to rich white families. If you are black and parrot this line, rich white people are overcome with joy . They go to extreme lengths to give you a platform. You can become president or a Supreme Court justice. You can get a television talk show or tenure at a university. You can get money for your foundation. You can publish self-help books. Your films will be funded. You might even be hired to run a company.

Rich white families, their sycophants opine, have tried to help. Rich white families have given poor people numerous resources and government programs to lift them out of poverty. They have provided generous charity. But blacks, they say, along with other poor people of color, are defeated by self-destructive attitudes and behavior. Government programs are therefore wasted on these irresponsible people. Poor families, the sycophants tell us, will not be redeemed until they redeem themselves. We want to help, rich white people say, but poor black people need to pull up their pants, stay in school, get an education, find a job, say no to drugs and respect authority. If they don’t, they deserve what they get. And what the average black family ends up with in economic terms is a nickel for every dollar held by the average white family.

Starting at age 10 as a scholarship student at an elite New England boarding school, I was forced to make a study of the pathology of rich white families. It was not an experience I would recommend. Years later, by choice, I moved to Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood when I was a seminary student. I lived across the street from one of the poorest housing projects in the city, and I ran a small church in the inner city for nearly three years. I already had a deep distaste for rich white families, and that increased greatly after I saw what they did to the disenfranchised. Rich white people, I concluded after my childhood and Roxbury experiences, are sociopaths.

The misery and collapse of community and family in Roxbury were not caused by an inherent pathology within the black family. Rich people who treated the poor like human refuse caused the problems. Layers of institutionalized racism—the courts, the schools, the police, the probation officers, the banks, the easy access to drugs, the endemic unemployment and underemployment, the collapsing infrastructures and the prison system—effectively conspired to make sure the poor remained poor. Drug use, crime and disintegrating families are the result of poverty, not race. Poor whites replicate this behavior. Take away opportunity, infuse lives with despair and hopelessness, and this is what you get. But that is something rich white families do not want people to know. If it were known, the rich would have to take the blame. Read the other two pages of this hard hitting, truth filled article by Chris Hedges at link below:

Rich white families are also the most efficient killers on the planet. This has been true for five centuries, starting with the conquest of the Americas and the genocide against Native Americans, and continuing through today’s wars in the Middle East.

Quote

"The rich executed a coup d’état that transformed the three branches of the U.S. government and nearly all institutions, including the mass media, into wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state. - Chris Hedges

We can feed the world without the kind of farming that depends on managing weeds with toxic chemicals, and we don’t need costly chemical fertilizers that slowly destroy soil’s ability to grow crops while exacerbating climate change.By Florence Reed, Food Tank June 21, 2015

A farmer harvests corn at a field on the outskirts of Faisalabad, Pakistan, June 18, 2015. Reed argues that the world can grow enough food successfully without farming methods that use agrochemicals and GMOs.

I grew up in a diversity-loving community. The old adage “it takes all kinds” was written into my blood…until I said it to a new acquaintance.

“No,” he replied. “There are some kinds we could really do without.”

And he’s right. We could do without many kinds of people.

I think the same is true of farming practices—but I have been hearing something different. I first came across the “It-Takes-All-Kinds-of-Farming” theory at the 2014 Camden Conference. The message that came out of one panel was that organic farming is fine, but that we need all kinds of agriculture if we are going to feed the world.

To which I say: No. It does not take all kinds.

We can feed the world without the kind of farming that depends on managing weeds with toxic chemicals rather than with mulch and weeding. According to a new assessment by the World Health Organization, glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, was found to probably be carcinogenic to humans. We don’t need that. We don’t need costly chemical fertilizers that slowly destroy soil’s ability to grow crops while exacerbating climate change.

In fact, I would say we do not need any new farming technologies until they are rigorously tested and proven harmless. Not when we have an arsenal of inexpensive sustainable techniques at our fingertips that can improve soil, protect the environment, and produce a high yield—without doing any harm.

Some might say my rose-colored glasses are too thick. That if I believe we can feed the 7 billion people on this planet without big ag, petrochemicals, and GMOs, that maybe my “kind” is not needed.

But maybe the naysayers haven’t visited places like Harvest for the Hungry Garden in Santa Rosa, CA, where over 20,000 pounds of organic produce is grown annually on a three-quarter-acre lot. Maybe they haven’t visited the hundreds of farms in Central America whose successes I have had the privilege of sharing. Before beginning work withSustainable Harvest International, the families working these small farms were some of the poorest on our planet. Through working with us, they learn organic techniques that allow them to produce plenty of healthy food for themselves and others. Each of these farmers is offered the opportunity to choose from a large and ever-growing menu of techniques that we teach—because though it doesn’t take all kinds, it does take many.

None of the farming practices taught by Sustainable Harvest International, however, include agrochemicals or GMOs. We believe it takes only those kinds that produce more food without contaminating air, water, and soil, endangering the lives of humans and other species, increasing greenhouse emissions, or destroying soil’s ability to continue producing food in the decades to come. For those of you doubting how small farmers using organic methods can feed the 7 billion, I invite you to come to Central America with me to witness the power of small-scale, organic farms.

I hope that those promoting harmful farm products will join us innovating on the many healthy farming practices that already exist. Having the courage to change your mind will be rewarded when you stand up for people and the planet—not only by saying it doesn’t take all kinds, but by contributing to the kind of development we truly need.

This is a guest article by Florence Reed, founder and president of Sustainable Harvest International.

We can feed the world without the kind of farming that depends on managing weeds with toxic chemicals, and we don'’t need costly chemical fertilizers that slowly destroy soil’s ability to grow crops while exacerbating climate change.

We can feed the world without the kind of farming that depends on managing weeds with toxic chemicals, and we don'’t need costly chemical fertilizers that slowly destroy soil’s ability to grow crops while exacerbating climate change.

Yes Agelbert as this article certainly appears to explain.

Hate to admit I to was conned by the piggies and their chemicals. How the hell can we possibly feed seven billion people I mused to myself, without modern technology. What a fool to be conned by those bastards, their poisoning everybody and destroying the land as well.

I bought some corn on the cob for a summertime treat last week, it isn't even corn anymore, but dried out white and dull yellow kernels.

When I remember the big robust bright yellow kernels, bursting with wholesome nutrition and flavor in my youth I could just cry.

Fresh Native corn it was labeled and that's what it was, this stuff today even looks artificial.

I hear ya. I have, as you know , done a lot of research on corn in general (and GMO corn in particular) in my EROEI study of ethanol from various plant products. Corn sucks as an ethanol source. Sugar cane is 8 times more efficient, but duckweed is the best. But that's another subject.

We have a HUGE problem with our corn that most people are unaware of. You have noticed the deterioration in quality and taste. In order to get decent sweet corn, you have to look high and low. The heirloom varieties that Native American tribes here and there grow are your best option for full flavored corn.

You may be interested to know that the miniature corn used in Asian dishes (I love it even though it has been over 20 years since I last ate some!) is actually sweet corn picked early. They have a saying among corn growers (knee high by the 4th of July) for proper corn crop growth. Well, those who want to grow their own miniature corn need to know this so they can harvest (twice) the tiny sweet corn and then eat them fresh, pickle them or freeze them.

If you like that tiny sweet corn (the common yellow corn we are accustomed to BUT you can do this with heirloom colored corn too!), bear in mind that the miniature corn imported from outside the USA is NOT organic. It might not be GMO, but the fields are pesticide laden and chemically fertilized.

Corn is a grass. The fact is that every lawn in America COULD be used to grow it. But, of course, that's too logical, makes too much CFS and then what would the lawn fertilizer, pesticide and power lawn mower fossil fue loving dealers do to make money?

As a student of our economy, you will probably ask yourself why miniature corn is not a big product in the USA. After all, many people love it and it is the same sweet corn that gets big and is grown all over corn country in the USA.

The answer is, you guessed it, miniature corn must be hand harvested. Our Big Ag GOONS hate to pay humans to do anything and prefer trashing the planet with GMO corn, fossil fuel based fertilizers and massive gas guzzling planting and harvesting machinery. As your article pointed out, we don't need to do that. We NEVER needed to do that.

Another thing that all of us need to be concerned with, GO, is yellow dent corn (field corn). It's a type of corn that is not edible. Yet, more of THAT crap is grown than any other kind of corn in the USA! But, you guessed it, we AND OUR CHILDREN are being fed it in various sneaky ways.

Quote

Yellow dent or field corn is also made into cornmeal, corn flakes, hominy, grits, corn starch, corn sugar, corn syrup, corn oil, corn-oil meal, gluten feed and meal, whiskey and alcohol. You can be fairly certain you are consuming GMO when consuming any of the above, unless you seek out organic options.[/size]

Quote

Nearly ninety percent of the field corn planted in the U.S. is genetically modified, in contrast to sweet corn, of which about 4 percent was genetically modified in 2011.

(4) Although Syngenta’s Bt 'Attribute' seed has been on the market for over 10 years, it is not widely used, as it is only sold to commercial growers who sign a stewardship agreement and also plant a minimum of 20 acres. But in 2012 another company came into the sweet corn market, Monsanto. Monsanto introduced its first GM sweet corn seed called 'Performance' with three GM traits; Roundup Ready herbicide tolerant and two insect resistant traits (corn-borer and rootworm).

(5) It was rumored Monsanto was ready to produce enough seed to cover 250,000 acres with its GM sweet corn in 2012 but the company has not divulged how much it has sold or how much was planted. (6) The 2013 figures are also not available. Wal-Mart has agreed to sell Monsanto's corn, but Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and General Mills have pledged not to sell or use it. Be sure to ask your local farmer what corn he has planted.

I don't need to ask my local farmer what corn he has planted. Despite Vermont's good move to get food products labeled, the non-organic farmers here are growing more and more GMO corn. Unfortunately, Vermont is now GMO corn country.

If you are interested, I will post my miniature corn research. I have lots of cool corny pictures with it.

If you are interested, I will post my miniature corn research. I have lots of cool corny pictures with it.

No thanks AG, I wouldn't understand it.

What I would like to know though is it worthwhile to buy so called Organic grown corn at a place like Whole Foods and take the big shafting on their high prices, or is it still a cob of chemicals and Roundup? I don't trust piggies, even though Whole Foods has a good reputation. Their stock has not been doing well lately, and they vow to come up with a solution. We both know what that means.

The reason I ask is I was getting the shaft paying big bucks for their cage free eggs. Come to find out the piggies got the law written where cage free means a chicken allowed to look out his cell block window for a few minutes every day. a few alternate net websites Bad Quaker and Jim Corbett that I listen to occasionally woke me up to that con job.

It's tough staying ahead of the piggies, they have a million bags of tricks. Comments on Blueberries, organic versus conventional would be welcomed as well. With three bucks a pint difference in price, and they sure look alike, my gold bug instincts about people and money tell me to buy the conventional and wash them extra thoroughly.

Yep. Whole Foods is out to get some suckers customers with a new line of "affordable" products with some clever name that they CLAIM will be GMO free and organic. I agree that anything they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

You mentioned blueberries. As you have surmised, ANY product you buy requires a certain level of trust by you because, apart from the obvious appearance of the food, something the retailers have become experts in packaging so they look great to us, we humans simply do not have the sensory equipment to tell if something is GMO or not.

We also cannot tell what level of pesticide residue is on fruit or veggies.

And we have problems picking out meat too. We see a label that says "grass fed" beef certified organic. It's just a label. Somebody might have slapped it on there and the meat is from a poor cow that was pumped hidden meat "product" prions in the feed along with HFCS from GMO corn AND lots of GMO yellow dent (inedible!) corn too! There is simply no way to tell by sight.

The internet has helped avoid some of the pitfalls somewhat.

My wife has discovered a place called Vitacost. It's got a lot of organic foods including great roasted garlic tomato sauce. I mention it because, even though we don't get fruit from there, it's a source you may want to check out. They aren't giving the stuff away, but the prices are reasonable.

Back to the blueberries. As to fruit, let us understand and be clear that GMO, at least at present, is a non-issue (tomatoes technically are fruit and ARE being GMOed so you have to watch out for them).

Somebody out there is monkeying with banana DNA but it's not on the market yet.

The issue with fruit is pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Organic is better, not just because the pesticides aren't used, but because organic, even though they look exactly the same as the non-organic, have a higher nutrition content. Fossil Fuel based Chemical fertilizers are great for making BIG fruit with LOW nutrient content. So, the YIELD IN WEIGHT helps the farmer make more money. But the fruit just ain't the same. Organic fruit, if it's not mislabeled, is worth the extra expense.

The ISSUE with pesticides is real. But as you pointed out, many veggies (e.g. celery, broccoli, potatoes, carrots and other tubers) and fruit that have been sprayed, particularly fruit with thick skin like mangos, avocados and citrus, can be washed. BUT, the thin skinned ones like apples, blueberries, gra pes, etc. will have residue. Peaches suck up pesticides like there is no tomorrow so you DO NOT EVER want to buy them if they aren't organic. The skin is alive. It absorbs whatever was sprayed on the fruit. The pesticide might not go any farther, but it ain't gonna get totally washed off because it ain't totally on the surface.

That said, washing is not optional, regardless of the fruit or the vegetable. There are lots of potentially harmful tiny critter things (like nematodes and the like) that you get rid of by washing.

But don't fixate on washing. We wash organic fruits and veggies too.

Fixate on the nutrition. Find out what the difference is between organically grown blueberries and non-organically grown ones. Just Google that and you will then be armed to do the money math. Yes, there is always some trick that a retailer is trying to play. But in fruit, you generally DO get what you pay for.

With food like corn, that can be GMO without you knowing it, avoid the yellow colored corn. There is ZERO GMO corn DNA in the heirloom (Indian) colored corn varieties.

Here's a snippet from my research:

Black, red and blue corn is rich in anthocyanins. Anthocyanins have the potential to fight cancer, calm inflammation, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, protect the aging brain, and reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

We started eating yellow sweet corn because when Washington was destroying the crops of the Native Americans to help them starve to death, one of his troops discovered a very yellow variety the Native Americans were growing and took the seeds back. The more yellow the corn is, the more carotenoids it contains, since these compounds provide plants with color. In particular, yellow corn is abundant in two carotenoids, zeaxanthin and lutein, which keep eyes healthy. So yellow sweet corn is NOT a nutritional improvement over colored corn even though it DOES taste somewhat sweeter. But the bottom line is that you CANNOT get scammed into buying GMO corn labeled otherwise when it is colored corn. I recommend it. Is it expensive? Yep. But you really do get what you pay for.

I know you aren't interested in buying corn seeds but this web sight has a lot of pictures of the type of corn you may be interested in eating:

Corn, Mandan Bride Organic Catalog #1355A

(Zea mays) From the Mandan Indians of Minnesota and North Dakota. Extensive color range includes some attractive striped kernels. Use as a flour corn or for fall displays. Ears are 6-8" long on 6' plants. 85-90 days.

Agelbert NOTE: Articles like this should be shouted from the roof tops, all over the USA, and on a daily basis, until the Empathy Deficit Disordered Greed Balls running this country into the ground extract their heads from their profit over people and planet addicted asses.

Quote

There are 45 million Americans struggling to survive just like me.

Being stuck in poverty isn't about morals or character. It isn't about family structure or some "culture" of poverty. And it certainly isn't about being lazy or stupid. Most poor people are smart, hard-working, decent, kind, compassionate people. They are creative and innovative in solving their problems and creating beauty and ritual in their lives. They care for their children, disabled, and seniors with tenderness and love; they play music and write poetry and make art.

They put up with a lot of bullsh it from the public on a daily basis at their crappy low-wage jobs, but keep on smiling and telling you to have a great day. They take a lot of Advil and supplements in order to make up for the fact that they have little to no health care. They die sooner because of their struggle; even sooner if they live under Republican rule.

Quote

I especially appreciated the Kossacks who shared their personal stories of picking up and leaving with the hope of a better future. They let me know that the problem isn't in me; I'm not defective. It's not that I lack ability or intelligence or drive, it's the system here that is broken, shutting me out at every turn, keeping me down.

Germany will also ban GMO crops. "There's resistance from all sides, from the public to the farmers," Christian Fronczak, a spokesperson for the Agriculture Ministry, told Bloomberg. 9 of Germany's 10 federal states have already declared themselves as GMO-Free regions. England plans to go ahead and allow planting, despite strong citizen opposition.

---

Scotland is on a roll on renewable energy, and now it's moving to protect its land and food.

Growing genetically modified crops will not be permitted in Scotland, announced Richard Lochhead, the country's Secretary of Rural Affairs.

This year, the EU passed legislation allowing member countries to opt-out of growing GMO crops, opening the door for Scotland to say, NO Thanks.

Scotland isn't the first country to ban GMOs:

Lochhead explains the decision:

"Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment - and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status.

"There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector.

Quote

"Scottish food and drink is valued at home and abroad for its natural, high quality which often attracts a premium price, and I have heard directly from food and drink producers in other countries that are ditching GM because of a consumer backlash.

"That is why I strongly support the continued application of the precautionary principle in relation to GM crops."

Unfortunately, the EU law leaves loopholes that Monsanto etc. can use in litigation, and if the US-EU trade deal passes (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) these "legal weaknesses" can be used to challenge national bans. In the US, the DARK Act is moving through Congress - Deny Americans the Right to Know Act - and the GMO industry is working on Africa. Scotland also banned another industry this year - Fracking.A new policy makes efficiency the "preferred fuel" to reach its goal of 100% renewable energy. It leads on tidal energy and offshore wind.

“The Quack Doctor,” by Vermonter Thomas Waterman Wood, shows a man hawking his patent medicine to a crowd. Wood added a visual pun, a group of ducks walking and apparently quacking beneath the wagon.

The doctor’s name, “I.M. Cheatham,” is painted on the side of the wagon. Wood took another shot at this sort of charlatan by painting the rear wheel to partially obscure the final three letters of the name. For this painting, Wood used his native Montpelier as the backdrop, including the archway that once spanned East State Street. Photo courtesy of the T.W. Wood Gallery, Montpelier

Gov. Peter Shumlin’s State of the State address in 2014 shocked many people.

the governor declared. The problem was so serious that Shumlin took the extraordinary step of dedicating his entire address to a single issue.

The image of Vermont beset with a drug addiction crisis was jarring. It ran counter to the popular perception of the state as a secluded community immune to the horrors of modern life.

The news might have been less stunning if people had known of an earlier and equally alarming report prepared by a University of Vermont dean about opiate abuse by Vermonters. The dean revealed that, based on his survey of doctors and druggists, Vermonters consumed an average of one-and-a-half doses per adult per day. It’s an astonishing figure made all the more stunning by the fact that the dean believed that, because of the uncooperativeness of many he surveyed, the true number of doses was perhaps five times higher.

Don’t feel bad if you missed news of this report, however. It’s not exactly new. The dean, Dr. Ashbel Parmlee Grinnell, issued it in 1900.

Historian Gary Shattuck will deliver a lecture entitled “Opiate Use in Vermont: The Present Reflects the Past” at 7 p.m. on Oct. 20 at the Waterman Memorial Lounge at UVM. This will be the inaugural Sam B. Hand Memorial Lecture, sponsored by the Vermont Historical Society and the University of Vermont Center for Research on Vermont and Special Collections. The late Professor Hand taught and mentored many of the state’s current generation of historians.

The 115-year-old report is getting fresh attention thanks to Gary Shattuck, a writer and historian. Shattuck has unearthed sobering facts about the state’s history of opiate abuse. His research forms the basis of his essay in the new issue of Vermont History, the journal of the Vermont Historical Society. Shattuck will also deliver a lecture on his research at UVM on Oct. 20.

Like Shumlin’s speech, Shattuck’s findings will surprise many people, even some longtime Vermont historians. Shattuck has a way of shining a light into the dark corners of the state’s past, and finding, well, darkness. A former assistant U.S. Attorney for Vermont, he is the author of “Insurrection, Corruption & Murder in Early Vermont: Life on the Wild Northern Frontier,” a book that detailed the shadowy world of smuggling during the early 1800s. Shattuck says it is his nature, and his professional training, to try to establish facts. “I’m always asking what caused something to happen,” he says. “That is where I try to live my life, with primary sources, not secondary ones.”

While researching his smuggling book, Shattuck noted how prevalent drinking was during the early 1800s. Drinking became such a problem that the state outlawed alcohol production and sale in 1852. That left Shattuck wondering: “If prohibition was supposed to be so successful, what were people doing to get stimulants?”

The answer, Shattuck found, is that they were imbibing an astonishing amount of opiates. Vermonters didn’t get their drugs in illicit, back-alley transactions; they got them from their doctors, or from their closest general store or druggist.

Vermonters were using opium long before the spike in demand that Shattuck attributes to the state’s prohibition on alcohol. In fact, he unearthed references to opium consumption as far back as 1786, before Vermont was even a state. That year, Eben Judd, a self-proclaimed doctor, described treating others with opium and discussing with a doctor in Guildhall how to make opium from poppies.

Vermonters had a long tradition of self-medicating. Part of the reason was because many people distrusted elites of any sort, a feeling that grew out of the anti-Masonry movement, which started in the late 1820s.

An advertisement for Greene’s Syrup of Tar, which had heroin as an ingredient, was manufactured by a company in Montpelier.

Another effect of that distrust was that Vermonters resisted creating a system for granting medical licenses. Requiring that doctors first graduate from a medical college in order to practice smacked of elitism to some, so for decades Vermont’s Legislature only sporadically monitored who could practice medicine. When it did require that doctors obtain licenses, the requirements were minimal. Making matters worse, the state also had several “diploma mills,” in Rutland, Bennington, Newbury and Newfane, churning out untrained men passing themselves off as doctors.

Even many trained doctors were ignorant of the dangers posed by opiates. Doctors relied so heavily on opium-based medicines to treat a range of maladies that nationally an estimated 16 percent became addicts themselves. The pharmaceutical industry and pharmacists were also unregulated and had a perverse financial incentive to push drugs that guaranteed return customers, who were literally addicted to the products.

The state Legislature could have remedied these problems with some careful regulation. But when doctors like Grinnell pointed out the seriousness of the opiate problem, the Legislature turned a deaf ear. Lawmakers were myopically focused on alcohol prohibition as the way to treat society’s addiction problems, and didn’t take the opiate crisis seriously, Shattuck says.

Doctors relied on opium and opium-based drugs because of their obvious effectiveness. Unlike most of the other treatments at their disposal, a dose of opium would quickly quiet a suffering or agitated patient. As a result, no one questioned the drug’s inclusion in countless patent medicines.

Vermonters didn’t have to rely on doctors to provide them with opiates. They could simply buy them at their local general store or druggist. Untrained clerks sold opium to the public in various products, such as Allen’s Lung Balsam, Dr. Bull’s Cough Syrup, Godfrey’s Cordial, Perry Davis’ Pain Killer, Lee’s Bilious Pills, Bateman’s Pectoral Drops, Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup or Dr. Moore’s Essence of Life. No prescription needed.

The Vermont Pharmaceutical Association tried to institute a mandatory prescription system, but doctors resisted. When doctors did write prescriptions, some used a code only decipherable by a favored druggist, who would kick back money to the doctor.

Vermonters also made the drugs. The state was home to one of the nation’s largest patent medicine manufacturers, Wells, Richardson & Co. of Burlington, which employed 200 people. Shattuck found numerous medicines containing opium listed in 23 pages of the company’s 1878 catalog.

Though some Vermonters tried their hand at growing poppies, most of the opium in the state originated in Asia Minor and the subcontinent.

“The problem was that drugs were so readily available and some doctors didn’t really understand the addiction that they were responsible for,” says Shattuck.

But some doctors saw the dangers of the powerful and highly addictive drug. In 1890, Elliot Wardsworth Shipman of Vergennes wrote that he had witnessed “five victims of this habit” enter his local drugstore and “purchase what opium and morphine they desired, within less than two hours time and no questions were asked.”

Shipman related horrible examples of malpractice, including a doctor who, when he grew tired of a young woman’s physical complaints, told her to buy a hypodermic needle and dose herself with morphine when she felt the need.

Indeed, the development of the hypodermic in mid-1800s exacerbated Vermonters’ habit of self-medicating with opiates, as it gave addicts a more efficient way to take the drugs.

By the late 1800s, some in the state pharmaceutical industry were becoming concerned by the prevalence of opium addiction. At the annual meeting of the Vermont State Pharmaceutical Association in 1898, Dr. J.C.F. With said that all druggists were familiar with opium and morphine users who “under one pretext or another” ask for their drug of choice. “I have seen a man get from a druggist an eight-ounce bottle of laudanum (opium mixed in alcohol), tear the wrapper off and deliberately drink half the contents,” he said.

With said he feared the man was attempting suicide, but then the man just wandered off as if this were a regular habit.

Some Vermonters began offering treatments for people addicted to opiates, alcohol and tobacco. In 1892, the Keeley Institute in Montpelier started offering three-week sessions for alcoholics. Four-week sessions were prescribed for morphine addicts.

By the early 1900s, as other states passed laws restricting opiate use, Vermont gained a reputation regionally for its lax or nonexistent laws. Addicts from neighboring states began visiting the state to buy their drugs. The Vermont Legislature finally acted to tighten state law in 1915, when it passed “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Opium, Morphine and other Narcotic Drugs.”

A century later, the state is still wrestling with how best to protect its citizens from the dangers of addictive drugs.